Well, I hate it when someone just says "I liked it." There's a difference between that and actually explaining WHY you enjoyed it, which is what I was referring to.
Love the discussion on poetry, such good points. If I comment on a poem its because I see potential in it. I try to give what constructive criticism I have to see the poem reach its full potential. I love poetry, writing it, reading it and watching a poem evolve. Though I tend to think subtle changes will suffice.
I guess I don't see a problem with it if you just have nothing to say about poetry. That's fair enough. Still, I think a lot of people could benefit from critiquing more poems. It's a lot of fun.
The main thing is I am never going to be able to write poetry - so I like keeping it to I don't know why but I liked it. With prose I HAVE to analyse it because I write it. I don't write poetry so I am quite happy with a piece of poetry to just find it funny, moving, poignant etc I don't want to or care about the why that is the poet's job to do that. I have Keats, Burns, McGough, Plath, Sassoon, Tennyson, Larkin, Owen, Mitchell, Burns etc on my bookshelves and I enjoy them would like to keep it at that. No I would not find critting poems fun. I do have things to say about poetry but it is of the I liked that it moved me - or what was that about. Not many of the poets on here want to hear or care that actually I just liked it bumps up their post count and prevents them getting proper reviews and some find it offensive.
Sometimes I wonder how many of those who do reviews honestly want to do them, and not simply because they have to get at least two reviews out. But then I guess if you really don't want to, there are other forums.
I thoroughly enjoy reviewing, actually. I like offering advice and enjoy pushing other writers to get better, or even just encouraging their current work is a good experience for me. Plus, reviewing helps me learn.
The thing I about reviewing is following up on the same person you reviewed with to see how his or her writing is going. I often tend to review the same person rather than many, many person without coming back to that person to see how he or she is doing. I think it makes the person more valuable and more encouraging to do better that way.
Hi, For me I do try to regularly do some reviewing. But I read and write novels, its practically all I know, so I wouldn't feel good critiquing outside of this. Maybe its a comfort zone thing in part, but equally I don't actually know what makes a good short story versus a bad one, or a good poem versus a bad one. Cheers.
I think Ion earlier in this thread has a really solid point about poets putting up some framing for their poem. Poetry is so intense, every single word having to work its ass off, usually highly metaphoric, abstract/impressionist, that I can't say much more than point out when I've found something works. The reason I don't critique much on that forum is that I have a quite primal regard for poetry without a framework. It either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, none of it does. Sure there might be a nice turn of phrase there, but poems are deeply holistic. To criticise a poem for me would be to take issue with pretty much all of it, but it then feels like, 'hey you don't like it you don't like it, no point in tearing it apart if you don't feel there's anything to redeem it or any tweaking that could improve it.' So I apologise for that, I enjoy reading the odd poem on there from time to time, but I guess I'm more a prose than poetry guy. ---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ---------- I think Ion earlier in this thread has a really solid point about poets putting up some framing for their poem. Poetry is so intense, every single word having to work its ass off, usually highly metaphoric, abstract/impressionist, that I can't say much more than point out when I've found something works. The reason I don't critique much on that forum is that I have a quite primal regard for poetry without a framework. It either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, none of it does. Sure there might be a nice turn of phrase there, but poems are deeply holistic. To criticise a poem for me would be to take issue with pretty much all of it, but it then feels like, 'hey you don't like it you don't like it, no point in tearing it apart if you don't feel there's anything to redeem it or any tweaking that could improve it.' So I apologise for that, I enjoy reading the odd poem on there from time to time, but I guess I'm more a prose than poetry guy.
I think Ion earlier in this thread has a really solid point about poets putting up some framing for their poem. Poetry is so intense, every single word having to work its ass off, usually highly metaphoric, abstract/impressionist, that I can't say much more than point out when I've found something works. The reason I don't critique much on that forum is that I have a quite primal regard for poetry without a framework. It either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, none of it does. Sure there might be a nice turn of phrase there, but poems are deeply holistic. To criticise a poem for me would be to take issue with pretty much all of it, but it then feels like, 'hey you don't like it you don't like it, no point in tearing it apart if you don't feel there's anything to redeem it or any tweaking that could improve it.' So I apologise for that, I enjoy reading the odd poem on there from time to time, but I guess I'm more a prose than poetry guy.
